RE: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58)

2013-02-22 Thread Musayev, Ilya
in review state. -Original Message- From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:18 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58) On Fri, Fe

RE: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58)

2013-02-22 Thread Musayev, Ilya
view state. -Original Message- From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:18 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58) On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:26:

Re: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58)

2013-02-22 Thread David Nalley
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:26:43PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote: >> Hugo, I just want some better engineering process than the current >> one. Yes, we can disagree and have different views on the same thing. >> Nonetheless, I just want us to fin

Re: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58)

2013-02-22 Thread Chip Childers
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:26:43PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote: > Hugo, I just want some better engineering process than the current > one. Yes, we can disagree and have different views on the same thing. > Nonetheless, I just want us to find a better solution, workflow than > the current one, just wa

Re: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58)

2013-02-22 Thread Rohit Yadav
Trippaers wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: rohityada...@gmail.com [mailto:rohityada...@gmail.com] On Behalf >> Of Rohit Yadav >> Sent: vrijdag 22 februari 2013 7:37 >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewin

RE: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58)

2013-02-22 Thread Hugo Trippaers
> -Original Message- > From: rohityada...@gmail.com [mailto:rohityada...@gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Rohit Yadav > Sent: vrijdag 22 februari 2013 7:37 > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: &

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58

2013-02-21 Thread Mice Xia
already add license headers for following files, both master and 4.1 Unapproved licenses: server/src/com/cloud/deploy/DeployPlannerSelector.java server/src/com/cloud/deploy/AbstractDeployPlannerSelector.java server/src/com/cloud/deploy/HypervisorVmPlannerSelector.java scripts/network/ping

[DISCUSS] Code Reviewing process (was Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58)

2013-02-21 Thread Rohit Yadav
This and few regressions won't have happened if there was a reviewing process. Skip the rant: I don't know why people are scared of good engineering practices, they just need to be educated. They would claim that reviewing process would slow us down, yeah but fixing regressions, builds, bugs intro

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #58

2013-02-21 Thread Chip Childers
Can someone please correct this? On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:03 PM, Apache Jenkins Server wrote: > See > > Changes: > > [kelveny] CLOUDSTACK-1362: Put a workaround fix to set excutable attribute of > injectkys.sh at runtime > > [sheng.yang